AXIOS
Eastern & Orthodox Christian Gay Men and Women
Volume 11, No. 1 February-March, 1994
Dear Friends and Members of Axios:
Greetings and blessings of the New Year to all. The February meeting of Axios will take place on Friday, February 11, 1994, at our usual meeting place, the Gay & Lesbian Community Center, located at 208 W. 13th Street in Manhattan. The February meeting will begin promptly at 8:00 p.m. with a vesper service.
Attendance at the January meeting was very poor. At this time Axios is going through a period of change and re-assessment. In order for Axios to continue functioning as a viable organization, all our members must do as much as they can in the following areas:
-- A determined effort by all local members to attend the February meeting and as many future monthly meetings (second Friday of the month, unless otherwise noted) as possible. Members are respectfully requested to make every effort to arrive on time for the beginning of the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Prompt arrival at the meeting ensures that society business can be discussed in an orderly and timely fashion; that presentations to the members take place as scheduled; and (most important) that enough members are available to vote on society business.
-- Axios is only as strong as its members' personal commitment to it. In addition to attending and actively participating in monthly meetings, each and every Axios member is responsible for providing financial support to cover the on-going expenses of the society. Funds must be found to cover rent for meeting space at the Center, as well as printing and mailing costs of both meeting announcements and newsletters. Without proper funding, future projects which the members may elect to pursue will never materialize. Members may give the organization financial support in two important ways. First, it is urgently requested that all members who have not done so already renew their memberships. Annual dues are $18.00. Checks should be made out to: Nicholas Zymaris/Axios. Nicholas is the Treasurer of Axios and all dues should be mailed to: Nicholas Zymaris, P.O. Box 741, East Northport, NY 11731-0496.
Tbe officers of Axios wish to apologize to all members and friends who sent funds and communications to our old post office box and had the mail returned to sender. In the confused period that preceded our past President's untimely death the post office box rent was not paid and the box expired. We have applied for a new box in the same post office and hope to have it open in time to announce our new mailing address at the February meeting.
Second, our rent per meeting at the Center is $2.00 per person or $20.00, whichever is more: a $20.00 minimum charge for each meeting. The rent for a meeting attended by less than 10 people must be subsidized through the use of membership funds. It is essential that members be present at meetings. It is essential that all who attend meetings contribute $2.00 for the meeting room rent at the Center.
Dear fellow members of Axios, if we all join together and contribute our time, ideas, and financial resources, we can grow and become strong in our witness as an organization of gay Eastern and Orthodox Christians. God's peace to you all!
-- Alexei
* * *
The Reverend Edward Gaweda, clergy member of Axios, is pleased to announce the formation of a new study group for Axios members and friends interested in personal spiritual growth and development. The name of the study group will be "Icons -- Month by Month". The group will use icons -- the traditional art form of Eastern and Orthodox Christians -- as "doors of perception" to seek personal inner spiritual growth. Group members will meet once a month. An icon will be assigned, and during the month individuals will be asked to spend time with the icon in prayer, meditation and contemplation, with the objective of listening for how the icon "speaks" to them. Group members will be asked to share these perceptions with one another in a personal way. Sessions will begin with prayer and include theological and historical information on the icon under study. For further information please call Reverend Edward at (212) 688- 7357, or speak to him at the next Axios meeting.
THE ORTHODOX OBSERVER, PHARISAISM, AND HOMOSEXUALITY
The Orthodox Observer is the official newspaper of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in New York City. It purports to convey the Orthodox view on many different topics, but usually ends up falling back on simple formulas and legalism. It has been referred to as the "Pravda" of the Archdiocese owing to its stiff tone, and attempting to impose a "party line" while stifling dissent. At Hellenic College/Holy Cross (the Greek Orthodox seminary in Brookline, MA), the seminarians often refer to it as the "Orthodox Disturber".
One example of this approach can be seen in the Observer's "reporting" on the OCL (Orthodox Christian Laity). Rather than describing them and allowing the reader to form a judgement, or even explaining the reason the Archdiocese objected to them, the articles consisted merely of threats: that the OCL must immediately desist from their activities and no Orthodox are permitted to have anything to do with them. Why the OCL acquired this status, or whether the Archdiocese was trying to cover up something else, was of course not dealt with. Apparently one of the OCL's activities was demanding financial responsibility, which is understandably a sensitive point. Greek Orthodox tend to be affluent and contribute large sums of money to the Church, yet the Archdiocese is perpetually having financial difficulty. Hellenic College/Holy Cross has nearly run out of funds more than once despite many successful fundraisers. There is also the real estate scandal which was kept secret until recently when the Observer felt compelled to mention it due to mounting difficulties with the Internal Revenue Service. Again, rather than objectively report on the problem (or, perhaps, apologize for the misuse of funds and promise to do better next time??), the article put forth the official party line, denied any wrongdoing, and expressed dismay at those who felt otherwise. (This stance towards the OCL is also unfortunate because there may be valid reasons to oppose the OCL, such as fundamentalist tendencies. The Observer should realize this and openly discuss this, because otherwise it looks like a coverup, and if anything it increases interest in the OCL).
Aside from money, the other obviously sensitive topic one notices in the Observer, and by extension in the Archdiocesan officials who govern its content, is sex. Several years ago, People magazine published an article ("The Dark Prince of the Greek Orthodox Church") about Anthimos, who was the bishop of Denver. The article detailed his affair with an underage girl and the effect on her and her family (the girl suffered severe emotional difficulties and required much therapy), and the Archdiocese's less-than-honorable treatment of the girl's parents. Parishes were in an uproar. The Archdiocese, however, behaved in a manner shamefully reminiscent of Stalinist information and propaganda control, rather than "the way, the truth, and the life". It never admitted any wrongdoing, it penalized the family, it claimed the girl was crazy (so that the accusations naturally would have no merit), it tried to avoid mentioning anything in the Observer, which ran a cryptic article referring to an unnamed magazine and accusations. Later a second article stated forcefully that the matter was closed and no further discussion would be tolerated. It didn't say that it threatened to sue People because it had an article about another Greek Orthodox Archdiocese bishop in a similar situation. People never published that one.
Nowadays, with the publicity over Roman Catholic clergy sex scandals (which were also, of course, characterized by coverups and intimidation), the problem can't be simply brushed under the rug as before (this is one reason they withold information). A small article in the January 1994 Observer noted that Fr. Milton Efthimiou is attending a "SCOBA Committee of Clergy Sexual Abuse" to "develop policy and guidelines dealing with clergy sexual misconduct". As is typical, wrongdoing is not admitted, neither is forgiveness sought (ironic in light of the articles elsewhere in that issue urging frequent and thorough confession). But the implication is clear. Clergy sexual abuse has become such a problem (or enough people have noticed and refuse to be silent) that they have no choice. Whether this committee will take constructive action or make token gestures remains to be seen.
It should be noted that Bp. Anthimos communicated with Axios/Denver members shortly before his transfer to an obscure diocese to wait out the exploding scandal (he was never deposed). He told them he would not deny them Communion at a particular Liturgy, then he went back on his word in order to embarass them and as part of his attempt to destroy the Axios chapter there.
Needless to say, the Greek and other Orthodox jurisdictions are quite aware of Axios' existence (I recently received a phone call from a priest in western Pennsylvania; he said he's known about Axios for 12 years), but most don't do anything. Archbishop Iakovos responded to a letter from Axios/New York members (c. 1987) ambiguously, without negativity except for his cautioning not to start a new church (which is not what Axios is about) based on differences like homosexuality (which was lumped with adultery, fornication, etc.). Not a word on the uncanonical fragmentation of the Orthodox Church based on differences like ethnicity (so that multiple bishops of various jurisdictions preside over the same area) despite the Patriarch's condemnation of ethnophyletism as a heresy. At other times, priests' and bishops' apparent indifference to Axios may be due to fear of being outed, as was likely the case at the 1992 National Council of Churches in Christ (NCCC) convention. Also, of course, there isn't any valid charge that they can use against Axios; we are a lay organization which meets regularly for prayer, discussion, etc.; we are not founding any new church and are not even exclusively of any one jurisdiction.
The Observer's attitude toward homosexuality has ranged from silence to occasional negative articles to the recent advent of Fr. Angelo Artemas' monthly diatribes. The closest that it has come to anything remotely positive is the time around the 1988 Clergy-Laity Congress (these Congresses are held every two years). While the 1986 Congress was typically homophobic, echoing the knee-jerk stereotypes in Stanley Harakas' Contemporary Moral Issues Facing the Orthodox Church, in 1988 not a word was said on homosexuality. At the same time their views on AIDS would make even GMHC happy. There was even an article by a prominent Greek Orthodox individual who had once spoken at Axios, urging, among other things, compassion and lack of prejudice when dealing with AIDS. The article could even be said to have been subtly progay. This was also the time of the Greek Orthodox Telecom AIDS video featuring Axios' late secretary of blessed memory, George Vlamis. While the video gave brief lip service to the "love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality, it criticized people's Pharisaic attitudes in dealing with AIDS and homosexuality, even refuting (though subtly) the notion that AIDS is God's punishment to homosexuals by citing our Lord's response to the Pharisees after He gave sight to the blind man.
It has been said that the long period when the Observer was silent on homosexuality was due to the then-editor's son being gay; the editor wouldn't tolerate antigay articles but was constrained by the Archdiocese, so a sort of "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" stance was taken as a compromise.
Also, the brief presence of decency with regard to AIDS was short-lived. Even then, however, their position could be criticized for dealing with homosexuals only when terminally ill. And a number of priests who used to minister to AIDS patients have ceased to do so because they are seen by their peers as "AIDS priests" (another case of "Ti tha pi o kosmos -- What will the world think?" taking precedence over Christianity).
The "don't ask, don't tell" policy abruptly ended in January 1992. The Archbishop, in a front-page encyclical, declared 1992 the Year of Purity. The article began with the passage from I Corinthians, chapter 6, listing those who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. The passage is beloved to fundamentalists who mistranslate the terms malakoi and arsenokoitai (I Cor. 6:9) as "homosexuals", thus implying a blanket condemnation and one-way ticket to hell. While the terms have been translated differently by various translators, and probably refer to types of prostitutes (the term malakoi simply means "soft" and may have been thus intended), Iakovos used the most inaccurate translation (used in the New King James Version (NKJV) and some Revised Standard Version (RSV) translations) of the passage where both malakoi and arsenokoitai are combined into one term: homosexuals. (To a bigot, "they all look alike" anyway). The article proceeded to give the usual line on worship of the nuclear family as the basis of Christianity, and anything that detracts from that to be vehemently opposed so that we may remain pure. (No mention that Christ never married and warned against those who love family more than Him (Matthew 10:37), and His decidedly non-nuclear [to say the least] view of the family in Mark 3:31-35. Nor that the Archbishop's attitude encourages strife and the breakup of families with nonheterosexual members. Nor that monasticism also undermines his notion of the family).
In response to a letter discussing the inaccuracy of the translation, alternate translations, and the insights of biblical exegesis, as well as the related issues of encouragement of prejudice, and its irony in light of the positive Orthodox tradition on homosexuality (David and Jonathan, Ss. Sergius and Bacchus, the Rite of Brotherhood, etc.), the Archbishop said that the translation is direct from the RSV; that together with the KJV it is "highly regarded as the most authentic and accurate English translation of the Bible" (No comment on the fact that the RSV editors themselves again revised that version of the RSV, nor that the original KJV did not lump the two terms together and was fairly accurate). He continued, "As to the direct passage which you refer to, I reiterate that the translation is not mine, but comes from the RSV. I will not enter a debate as to its meaning and proper translation, and I trust that the English editors of the RSV have accomplished a remarkable scholarly task.
"I thank you for your letter and your insights, and I wish you well in every good and righteous work." [End of letter]
I would ask why he first defends these translations, then backs away by saying that they are not his translations, and refuses to "debate" the issue. None of the other issues brought up in the original letter were addressed (it would be difficult to do so and retain the official line on homosexuality). As in his previous correspondence with Axios members, he does not wish to directly condemn us or homosexuals, but is decidedly "soft" on homophobia.
As would be expected in such a targeted "Year of Purity", there were frequent articles in the Observer trying to drive home this point, often rife with gay-bashing. And it did not end with the close of 1992 (which perhaps means that they feel that the lesbian and gay community is much too vital to be suppressed by silence). Aside from Fr. Harakas' occasional antigay diatribes which were a staple of the Observer for years, the paper's editorial pages are now graced with a monthly "Commentary" by Fr. Angelo Artemas. Virtually all of these articles are about homosexuality; the rare article that doesn't mention gays generally deals with some sex-related topic (ironic in light of gays being condemned as allegedly sex-obsessed).
In general, Fr. Artemas' agenda seems identical to that of the American Family Association or AFA (one of the fundamentalist-oriented groups attempting to legalize antigay discrimination and invalidate gay-rights laws across the U.S.). In his February 1993 column, he rails against hate-crime legislation because this allegedly waters down the severity of ordinary crimes (those not due to bias). Of course he is not really making fine philosophical distinctions; he is being vague so as not to appear too homophobic. It is the dreaded "cultural war" at work. Next he decries the notion that everyone should be concerned about AIDS; and then finally gets to his point: "Certain gay activist groups are lobbying the federal government to be granted the same recognition as ethnic and cultural minority groups" (Note: nothing about equal rights; the term "recognition" implies the "special rights" myth of the AFA). He then lets loose with a volley of sophistic non-sequiturs: first that "Discrimination against any group or individual is certainly not acceptable, but when did sexual preference become an ethnicity or culture in and of itself?" (One could argue whether there is a gay culture, but that is not the point; discrimination is, as he said himself, "against any group" or even an "individual" -- in his zeal to say that lack of membership in a particular ethnic group or culture justifies discrimination he contradicts himself and exposes his not-so-hidden agenda.) He continues by saying that 5-10% "of every culture and ethnic group has been gay. If the gay sexual preference has been part of every culture and ethnic group, how can it become separated?" (Separated? Are blacks considered "separated" when they are protected against bigotry?) He then makes a parallel argument about left-handed people: 5-10% of every culture and ethnic group; so should they be lobbying for the dread "recognition as a cultural and ethnic minority?" One might ask why he doesn't demand that gender be deleted from the categories against which one may not discriminate; after all, women are neither a minority nor a cultural nor an ethnic group. He concludes by exhorting us, now that the cold war is over, to fight the cultural war (translation: We must have an enemy to be paranoid over. Now that the Commies are gone, lets get the queers!), not confusing "human compassion with acceptance of sinful behavior and activity."
But the most eloquent refutation of the Observer's new cult of Artemasism may be found in the lengthy letter to the editor underneath Fr. Artemas' commentary. It is by James Vlasto, press secretary to former New York City Board of Education Chancellor Fernandez, and though it deals with the Rainbow Curriculum, the points he makes are valid for Fr. Artemas' approach to all gay-related issues: "Father Angelo Artemas' grossly inaccurate commentary [in the January Observer] is a tendency found in those who seem determined to solve our social problems by avoiding them. His attack on the Children of the Rainbow curriculum is typical of opponents of the teacher's guide who go to great lengths to misrepresent and distort the facts to serve their own purposes." He proceeds to make a lengthy point-by-point refutation of Artemas' statements, which strongly imply that Artemas read very little of the curriculum guide if even that much; and ends by quoting Fernandez about not tolerating "scare tactics". The Observer's editor responds by claiming that the "unspoken, underlying theme" in Artemas' column is love for one's neighbor, which the Bible teaches as much as the same Bible condemns "homosexuality and fornication". Leviticus 18:22 is referred to. No mention that Lev. 18:19 forbids heterosexual intercourse during menstruation, or the many other Levitical proscriptions which are no longer followed, nor that Gentiles are not subject to the Mosaic Law at all (Acts 10:15,28; 15:20) with the exception of idolatry, eating of sacrifices to idols, and fornication (Acts 15:29). "Fornication" is the translation of the original Greek term "porneia", literally "prostitution." While it is a general term without specific reference to gender, when a distinction is made between heterosexual and homosexual prostitution (as in I Cor. 6:9), the term is used only for heterosexual activity (pornoi: "prostitutes", i.e. those who engage in porneia: I Cor. 6:9). The Observer continues by citing the opposition of some to the Rainbow Curriculum (one parent was actually "appalled and shocked"), and threatens the supporters of the curriculum with Matthew 18:6 ("but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea" [RSV]). "These are not 'scare tactics,' but simple truths....If school administrators wish to save lives, perhaps they can start by pointing out that "daddy and his roommate" are engaged in a practice which can lead to a horrible, untimely death, with or without a condom." (This editor should talk to the gay couples in SAGE who have been together 50 years or more before throwing stones. Needless to say, the shameless use of AIDS and bigotry to serve their own agenda reeks of the Pharisaic fundamentalist hypocrisy for which our Lord reserved His most scathing condemnation: "They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. ... But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against people; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in." [Matthew 23:4,13]).
Such drivel is typical of the Observer of today. Some comic relief was to be found, however, when Fr. Artemas wrote an article which was almost fair (March 1993) and was promptly blasted in a letter to the editor (April 1993) by an ultraconservative who felt that he was a flaming liberal. What was Fr. Artemas' heinous offense? He dared to suggest that we be consistent with regard to the gays-in-the-military issue; that we can't expel gays while tolerating Tailhook-style heterosexual misconduct. By no means did he condone homosexuality: he stated that lifting of the gay ban is associated with disregard of Christian teachings. But he condemned "the hypocrisy of those who argue politics with religion...the religious right."
The ultraconservative respondent (who states that he only converted to Orthodoxy in 1988) feels that Fr. Artemas' article was the worst article ever in the Observer (at least over the five-year period during which he received the paper). Because "Christians, Jews, and secularists" oppose the ban, there is no church-state issue. "Fr. Angelo [Artemas] falls neatly into the trap laid by those who have in mind a complete repudiation of traditional moral norms....But in calling for the official acceptance of homosexuality, they themselves are imposing the radicalized social agenda which has increasingly transformed classical liberalism into an ideology inimically opposed not only to basic Christian (and Jewish, and Islamic) moral principles, but to the age-old moral heritage of American society as a whole." (It is true that antigay sentiment is found among Christians, Jews, Moslems, and virtually all religions, as well as among atheists and agnostics. This points to fallen human nature as the cause of such bigotry). He castigates Fr. Artemas for castigating the "religious right" and praises members of this castigated group ("various Baptist and Evangelical Christian groups") for being in the "forefront" against gays: "They ought to be our allies in the rejection of radical social experimentation." After more complaints about acceptance of homosexuality, he lumps Fr. Artemas in with that despised class of people, "including a great many secularists [who feel] a long-standing loyalty to liberalism, and ultimately to the Democratic party, and simply cannot countenance a change of political loyalty." (Was he aware that conservative Republicans like Barry Goldwater and Alfonse D'Amato were against the ban? And though it wasn't obvious in March 1993, our Democratic president never did lift the ban, while justifying his "don't ask, don't tell" policy without a trace of apology to the community who trusted and supported him). One must also wonder what kind of Falwellian sect the respondent (incompletely) converted from to impose such a political requirement on the Orthodox, and to interpret Fr. Artemas' homophobia as progay.
His tendency (as well as Fr. Artemas') to lump together all that he opposes as ungodly Democratic fag-loving liberalism has no place in the Church where "whoever says 'Raca' to his brother shall be liable to the council" (Matthew 5:22). Nor have Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson become canonized to the best of my knowledge.
Like the Pharisees, they claim to be righteous, and condemn Christians for even associating with sinners [cf. Luke 5:29-32], muttering that this constitutes approval of sin. (Since all people are sinners, either they mean that they are perfect or that some sins [actual or perceived], especially involving consensual sex, are so heinous as to override our Lord's command to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This is quite simply idolatry: their ideology takes precedence over following Christ.) This also exposes their "love the sinner [homosexual person] but hate the sin [homosexual activity]" approach as the hypocritical lie which it is. If they truly adhered to this approach (if it were even possible), they would defend gays as strongly as Jesus defended (John 8:3-11) the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery (the punishment dictated by the very Law [Lev. 20:10] which fundamentalists use to condemn gays). Of course, if they strictly adhered to this approach, they would be unable to condemn lesbians, who are not mentioned in Leviticus. As with the use of AIDS as a means to throw stones, lesbians end up as a "chosen people" (being at very low risk for AIDS) by this logic.
If these modern-day Pharisees were truly interested in upholding Christian values, then they would look more objectively at Scripture and Tradition. One would ask why, if Scripture is allegedly so single-mindedly opposed to homosexuality, is there no disclaimer in the account of the relationship between David and Jonathan (I Samuel, passim). Consider II Sam. 1:26: "...very pleasant have you been to me; your love was wonderful, passing the love of women." Conceivably, Bibles could have been banned in Oregon libraries if the OCA's Measure 9 passed (The OCA is the Oregon Citizens Alliance, similar to the AFA, which tried to pass a law forbidding all libraries in Oregon from carrying any books which "promote" homosexuality or otherwise fail to strongly condemn homosexuality. There is no relation to the other OCA, the Orthodox Church in America, despite certain individuals' recent infatuation with fundamentalist idelogies, as exemplified by their embrace of the discredited "psychologist" Elizabeth Moberly). This is not pure speculation either, as Bibles have been banned from U.S. libraries before due to their sexual content. One should keep in mind, in this regard, that after God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (due to arrogance, inhospitality, and the final attempted gang rape of the angels in Gen. 19:5), Lot's two daughters got him drunk and each of them committed incest with him. Since they were neither condemned nor destroyed for this, are we to say that Genesis (as well as I and II Samuel) encourages sexual perversion and should be banned from libraries? (Fundamentalists freely cite Genesis 19:5 as allegedly condemning gays [when it really refers to gang rape] while conveniently and hypocritically ignoring Genesis 19:32-36). More to the point, it is clear that Pharisaic legalism can lead to absurd situations. It calls to mind a certain Greek Old-Calendarist who haughtily stated that one mustn't pick and choose which canons one will follow. He was attending vespers at a New-Calendar Orthodox Church, which his "True Orthodox Church" considers heretical! Not to mention the canons prohibiting multiple jurisdictions over the same area, which both Old and New Calendar churches are in violation of (this latter point certainly needs to be addressed; in the meantime we need to keep in mind that we are not justified by the Law; and that a certain selectivity is required when implementing the Canons anyway).
This objective look at Scripture and Tradition should also look at the Rite of Brotherhood, an ancient rite of the Church which is still performed in parts of Europe...and San Francisco! Even the opponents of this rite (see the Pedalion, ed. A. Makrakis, under "adelphopoiia" [Greek edition] or "brotherhood by adoption" [English edition]) concede its homosexual usage. The saints cited in this rite, Sergius and Bacchus, were lovers who headed a Roman military school in what is now Syria. Their biographer, St. Symeon Metaphrastes, recorded this in a decidedly enthusiastic tone without a hint of condemnation; the manuscript being preserved at Megisti Lavra on Mt. Athos and reprinted in Migne's Patrologia Graeca. So now we would have to ban lives of saints and prayer books from libraries also if we were to bow to the fundamentalists idols. Never! These saints and countless others endured sadistic torture and execution rather than submit to any form of idolatry. It was their steadfast faith which mattered, not their sexual orientation.
-- Nicholas Zymaris